Public interest, peak oil and global warming
Posted by Heading Out on February 12, 2006 - 4:43pm
Further to Halfin's comment on the life of this site, I thought I would revisit blogpulse and see how popular the topic has been since Prof G looked, back in July.
It seems as though, while a little more prevalent in the MSM, discussion otherwise has tailed off, as the lack of an evident problem may have caused the reduced interest. Unfortunately the problem itself has not gone away. Perhaps it will be interesting to come back and see the trend in another six months - if we are still here (grin).
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article344690.ece
So there is still uncertainty here. We have an uncomfirmed report of one phenomenon (GHG concentrations) which is predicted to lead to another phenomenon (global warming > 2 degrees) which is predicted to lead to a bad outcome (Greenland melting). It's a somewhat tenuous chain. Among sources of uncertainty, the article mentions the impact of aerosols, industrial emisions that block sunlight and reduce global warming. It's not clear whether things are that bad once aerosols are taken into consideration.
The experts cited in fact put things more mildly: "What this tells us is that we have already reached the point where our children can no longer count on a safe climate." It's not even clear what that means - could we "count on" a safe climate before? I don't recall being given a guarantee of a safe world when I was born. Maybe my parents lost the paperwork.
Part of the problem is that even if scientists believe this report, they can't come right out and say we're doomed, because it could actually undercut efforts to stop warming. "Why should we impose all these enormous costs when we're doomed anyway?" people might ask. (I love the guy in the article who said that fixing global warming is "affordable" - because it wouldn't cost any more than the Iraq war!) So the scientists would have to say, "well, we'll be even more doomed if we don't stop making things worse." It's not a very good way to sell a policy, that by undergoing enormous sacrifice you can improve from being "very doomed" to just doomed.
Should be interesting to hear how this "tipping point" stuff plays out in the next few months and years. Seems like neither side gains much political benefit from pushing it.
And maybe this site won't be around around in six months. Deffeyes thinks the time for predicting peak oil is over - he says it happened on Dec. 13.
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html
I feel a little shocked by the 2025 statement.I remember in his book that he would not go the get guns route .I am also shocked only one response( TOD), YES Liz, this deserves it's own thread. I have always thought electrictiy is more fragile than most seem to believe(except Duncan of Olduvail Theory). We had our lines replaced lately- they used a lot of energy.
What I see happening now is a load of propaganda coming from the government, politicians, and oil companies that our future is GREEN and RENEWABLE.. That's the message the sheeple are getting and they believe everything will be OK..
I for one, didn't even know about peak oil until about may 2005. SO until TSHTF, most people are satisfied to go about their daily lives not thinking about what tomorrow brings..
The sheeple never wander there.
It sounds to me that he has truly become discouraged by his numbers.
We should not be discouraged by the "sheeple count".
Bottom line is that more people in control of industry and government are waking up and seeing the approaching tsunami.
Hell, "addicted to oil" made it into this year's State of the Union Speech. Never mind the speaker's motives, it was still there. Who would have predicted that 2 years ago?
Even General Motors (GM !) is kind of admitting that Houston we have a problem.
Tom Friedman is talking about energy independence in his editorials.
John Tierney is provacateering about it in his.
You've come a long way baby.
http://omrpublic.iea.org/
Something like solar Stirling dishes could make the difference. There are enough 7-11's in Orange county that you could probably power a good fraction of greater LA if you just shaded all their parking lots with them. Meeting California's peak demand would take a few million of the things, not difficult for a nation which builds millions of vehicles a year.
NEW YORK (AP) The National Weather Service says a snowfall record has been set for New York City, with 26.9 inches measured in Central Park.
Everyone needs to be thinking the same way.
I had the same problem at the weekend. I used a chainsaw to chop up some trees for firewood. Despite the fact that I was essentially producing fuel for our new wood-fired kitchen stove, I couldn't help thinking about the petrol I was using in the chainsaw. Each time I set the saw down to throw some logs in the trailer, I was wondering if I should switch the damn thing off!
BUT can we do it? Gimme an infinitesmal fraction of the 400+billion "defense" budget and I will give you a real wonder of a chain saw. That's what I call an opportunity cost- not doing the saw and insead doing one little teeny tiny bit of an F-22. Sad, sad, sad.
The obvious priorities are:
Run it on the best alkylate petrol a refinery can make or figure out something even better and input the biofuels somewhere else in the economy. It would be stupid to stop using pure alkylate petrol in chainsaws and breath worse exhaust while you work. But processed bio oils are very good saw chain oils.
I suggest a compromise: Put the Stirling generator in its own box. Feed it sawdust, and let it charge some of those Li-ion batteries from A123systems. Use the batteries to run an electric chainsaw.
Also, I cannot stand the noise of snow blowers.
And don't tell me you're too old: I've been on Social Security for years.
I don't get the exercise Don does, but my back has stopped making sharp nasty comments since I quit using the snow pusher exclusively.
Bad analogy. I don't know if you're Christian, but try to think of Christmas eve. Once you know there is no Santa, you have no problem falling asleep.
You should be falling asleep simply because you are an oil trader. Holy Christ, how lucky could you be?
Oh, sorry. I just noticed you were a currency trader. I thought you said before it was oil.
Euro will stay between 1.15 and 1.25 for another month.
It starts by saying something (at the start of chapter one) that dovetails very well with my takeaway from past TOD (and other web) discussions:
I actually bought the book as a counterpoint to what I've read before, because it does NOT have "peak oil" in the index (Hubbert's peak, yes.).
Anyway, I see this tying back to the life of the site and the life of the trend this way ... Mr. Tertzakian reinforces the good case (which we've heard here from Stuart and others) that energy transitions take decades.
I think there's room for TOD to live, and for TOD's principles to publish their own books in that time ;-)
My guess is that interest in Peak Oil will largely move in tandem with retail energy prices. When gas or heating oil gets very expensive, people worry that we are running out. When prices drop then people stop worrying. It'd be interesting to see the technorati Peak Oil plot next to a graph of gas prices.
One difference is that TOD had an up trend from mid October to mid November, while gas prices were falling all through that period. But it's not a bad fit otherwise.
After Stuart's post on Greenland ice melting I studied James Hansen's papers, his latest being:
http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/newschool_text_and_slides.pdf
and included it in several submissions on various Government projects in Sydney, Australia. I am now arguing as PO and global warming being a double whammy.
Tonight, Australia's ABC TV 4corners programme took up the issue of local climatologists from the CSIRO being muzzled by opportunistic and myopic politicians or their agents, similar to what happened to James Hansen. Read at:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1568867.htm
So the topic of global warming is red hot. And by the way, the target is 60% reduction of green house gases by 2050. Will peak oil make it? Or will we go full speed into CTL - without geo-sequestration? How many CTL projects would be needed? What would be the cost per liter?
Who are you?
At the request of the House Science Committee, the National Academies are establishing a Panel on Climate Reconstruction (see ClimateAudit for details). McIntyre and McKitrick, and some other experts have been invited to address the Panel.
Astronomer1
A prominent scientist in the pay of the Federal Government attacks the President in a crucial state (Iowa) one month before the election. Not just any prominent scientist either, but James Hansen - recipient of $250,000 in pocket change from the Heinz Foundation run by Mrs John Kerry....
From www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/02,
In March of 2004, James Hanses wrote in Scientific American,
...Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue and energy sources such as synfuels, shale oil and and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrating objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.
In other words, Jame Hansen exaggerated in the past. Why should we believe him now - especially when GISS data is being chnged in puzzling ways?